Switzerland is successful because it gives its citizens and businesses comparatively broad freedom. Not because the state directs particularly much.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves of that more often.
Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich August von Hayek and Frédéric Bastiat were separated by more than a century of economic history. Yet one conviction united them: society works better in the long run when people are free to make as many decisions as possible themselves and when the state focuses on setting reliable rules.
That may sound theoretical.
For Switzerland, it is highly practical.
Freedom starts with the recognition that no one possesses enough knowledge to centrally steer a complex economy.
Hayek described this problem as early as 1945. Economically relevant knowledge is not concentrated in one place. It is dispersed across millions of businesses, households and individual decisions. Prices coordinate this knowledge without any authority having to possess it in full.
An entrepreneur knows more about his customers than a public agency.
A craftsman knows more about his capacity than a ministry.
An investor knows more about his risk than a commission.
This does not mean that markets always produce perfect outcomes.
It means something else: government decision-makers do not possess perfect knowledge either.
Regulation should therefore not be judged by whether its intention is good. What matters is what consequences it actually produces.
This is where Bastiat becomes relevant.
His famous principle of “what is seen and what is not seen” may be more relevant today than ever. Political measures usually make their immediate benefits highly visible. Subsidies create visible winners. Support programmes finance visible projects. Regulation addresses visible risks.
What is less visible are the opportunity costs.
Which company was never founded?
Which investment never took place?
Which employee was never hired?
Which innovation was abandoned because permits, documentation requirements or regulatory risks became too burdensome?
Bastiat’s point was not that public spending is inherently useless. His point was that its costs must also be taken into account.
This is precisely where the debate becomes concrete for Switzerland.
The OECD continues to describe Switzerland as an exceptionally successful, open and market-oriented economy. At the same time, it notes that the administrative burden on companies is above the OECD average and that reducing bureaucracy could strengthen productivity and economic dynamism. State ownership also remains significant in parts of the Swiss economy.
SECO itself sees room for improvement. Monitoring published in 2026 showed that the number of regulatory obligations imposed on companies increased regularly between 2005 and 2025. At the same time, instruments have been introduced to reduce administrative burdens.
This is not a crisis.
But it is a warning signal.
Mises would probably have asked a simple question: do we automatically respond to every new problem with a new intervention?
His criticism of interventionism was not a rejection of the state as such. Mises also regarded rules protecting property and peaceful cooperation as necessary. His warning concerned a different dynamic: interventions alter incentives, decisions and prices. When new problems emerge as a result, the response can easily become yet another intervention.
That is why freedom requires institutional discipline.
Not every inequality requires a subsidy.
Not every economic risk requires a new rule.
Not every desired development requires government support.
And not every social problem has an economic policy solution.
The alternative, however, is not “state or no state”. That distinction is too simplistic.
A free economic order requires an effective rule of law, functioning courts, property rights, competition, accountability and rules against fraud and abuse of power.
Externalities, information failures or natural monopolies may also justify state intervention.
The decisive question is therefore not whether the state is allowed to act.
It is: where is state action genuinely necessary, and where are people better placed to decide for themselves?
For Switzerland, this question is particularly important.
Our prosperity is built on entrepreneurship, international trade, innovation, competition, federalism and a remarkably strong tradition of individual responsibility.
These institutions are not historical decoration.
They are an economic competitive advantage.
Perhaps Switzerland therefore does not need a new programme for every new problem.
Perhaps it needs the courage, more often, not to create one.
Fewer rules where existing rules are sufficient.
More competition where structures are protected.
Faster permits.
Simpler procedures.
More responsibility for those who also bear the consequences of their decisions.
That would not be a revolution.
Quite the opposite.
It would be distinctly Swiss.
And Mises, Hayek and Bastiat would probably recognise a shared idea in it:
Freedom is not the absence of order. Freedom is an order that leaves individuals as much room as possible to decide for themselves.